As Rosemount considers approval of an immense Meta Platforms data center, plans for an even bigger data center — one more than double the size of the Wells Fargo Building in downtown Minneapolis — is also being floated in the growing southern suburb.
Local leaders see the potential construction as a boon for the economy, with the promise of growing the tax base. But some residents are uncertain, worried about whether the data centers will affect resources like electricity and water, create noise, or have harmful effects on animals.
"I think we see [data centers] as certainly good opportunities," said Logan Martin, Rosemount city administrator. "Beyond the use of water and electricity, it's a minimal impact on city services."
Planning for the second data center, dubbed "Project Mercury", is in the early stages, and currently under environmental review. Developers are actually proposing two different possibilities: several data center buildings, totaling 2.3 million square feet, or a mixed-use commercial and industrial project. Either concept would be located on 333 acres east of Hwy. 52 and north of County Road 42.
State regulators approved electricity contracts for the $700 million Meta facility in October. The data center, previously called "Project Bigfoot," would sit on 280 acres at the University of Minnesota's UMore Park along County Road 42 if the city approves plans Dec. 5.
Neighbors' feedback
The development proposals have left neighboring property owners with plenty of questions. Some attended a city open house about the Meta project this week where Rosemount City Council Member Paul Essler chatted with visitors with questions about noise, water usage and where all the necessary electricity would come from.
Resident Kayla Hauser worried about the amount of water the facility will use. She said she's also heard about the discount Xcel will give Meta on electricity. "Can I get this cushioned deal?" she asked.
Meta will receive an undisclosed discount off Xcel's general rates as a large power user. The Minnesota Department of Commerce determined that the deal isn't discriminatory to other consumers and wouldn't leave anyone "worse off," a Public Utilities Commission filing said.